Gaurav Kumar Joshi And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 28274 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:198470
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22579 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Gaurav Kumar Joshi And 2 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Girish Tiwari
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for opposite party No.2 as well as learned AGA and perused the record on board.

2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Case No.1447 of 2022 (State Vs. Chandrapal and others) arising out of Case Crime No.68 of 2022, under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Saifani, District Rampur, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No.2, Rampur.

3. Opposite party No.2 has lodged an FIR against the present applicants levelling allegation of cheating and criminal intimidation. During pendency of the present criminal proceeding, owing to intervention made by elder of the society, both the parties have entered into the compromise and settled their dispute amicably. Considering the compromise took place between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 12.07.2023, has directed the court below to verify the compromise. For ready reference order dated 12.07.2023 is quoted herein below :-

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire criminal proceedings in Case No.1447 of 2022 (State vs. Chandrapal and others), arising out of Case Crime No.68 of 2022, under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C., Police Station Saifani, District Rampur, pending before the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Court No.2, Rampur.

3. Present matter is arising out of matrimonial dispute.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the court and inked the compromise dated 24.2.2023 which has been submitted before the court below. Photocopy of the compromise is filed as Annexure No. 4 to the affidavit filed in support of the instant application. It is further submitted that both the parties have buried the hatchet and living peacefully and now there is no grudges against each other. Therefore, the criminal proceedings may be finally quashed in terms of the compromise.

5. In this conspectus as above, learned trial court before whom compromise application dated 24.2.2023 is pending consideration, is hereby directed to verify the compromise in presence of both the parties and submit its verification report within a period of one month from the date of appearance of parties who are hereby directed to appear before the court below on 28.07.2023.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants has assured that his client will give in writing notice to the opposite party No.2 apprising the order of date for appearance before the trial court concerned on 28.7.2023 and file affidavit of service before the trial court on the date fixed i.e. 28.7.2023.

7. List this matter on 04.09.2023 along with the verification report submitted by trial court concerned.

8. Till the next date of listing no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."

4. In pursuance of the order dated 12.07.2023, learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.02, Rampur has submitted the verification report dated 01.08.2023 along with copy of the compromise and compromises verification order dated 01.8.2023. Perusal of compromise verification order dated 01.08.2023 reveals that both the parties have appeared before the court and they have been identified by their respective counsels. Terms and conditions of the compromise has been spelled out to the parties who have admitted the factum of compromise and stated that they voluntarily entered into compromise without any duress and prayed for to quash the aforesaid criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise. Accordingly, compromise has been verified.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that, in the eventuality of settlement of dispute between the parties and the verification report submitted by the learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.02, Rampur verifying the compromise took place between the parties, instant application may be allowed and and criminal proceedings may be quashed. It is further submitted that now parties have buried the hatchet and there is no grudges against each other.

6. To quash the cognizance/summoning order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court :-

(i) B.S.Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others; (2003) 4 SCC 675.

(ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 667.

(iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1.

(iv) Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303.

(v) Narindra Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.

7. In a judgment passed by a Three Judges' Bench of the Apex Court in the Case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843, Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the ratio of all the cases decided earlier with respect to quashing of F.I.R./ charge-sheet/ criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement between the parties and expounded the ten categories in which application under Section 482 could be entertained for quashing the F.I.R./ charge-sheet/ criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise. Para no. 15 of the said judgement summarizing the proposition in this respect is reproduced below:-

"15. (i) Section 482 preserves the inherent power of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or compliant should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;

(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised;(i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;

(v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;

(vi) In exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence.Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot approximately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;

(vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;

(ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

8. Learned AGA has contended that he has no objection in deciding the matter on the basis of compromise which has been duly verified by the court concerned.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has nodded the factum of compromise entered into between the parties and he has no objection, if the instant application is decided finally on the basis of the said compromise. He also submits that compromise was verified in presence of both the parties, who have voluntarily entered into compromise and opposite party no. 2 does not wants to prosecute the present case against the applicants any more as no dispute remains between the parties.

10. With the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature of gravity and severity of the offence, which are more particular in private dispute, it is deemed proper that in order to meet the ends of justice, the present proceeding should be quashed. In result, dispute between the parties will put to an end, peace will be resorted and relationship between them will be smooth. No useful purpose would be served to keep the present matter pending inasmuch as both the parties have buried the hatchet and as the time passes, it will be difficult to prove the guilt of the accused. The continuation of criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice.

11. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties, which has been duly verified by the concerned court below, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of Case No.1447 of 2022 (State Vs. Chandrapal and others) arising out of Case Crime No.68 of 2022, under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Saifani, District Rampur, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No.2, Rampur is hereby quashed.

12. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action.

Order Date :- 12.10.2023

Md Faisal